Chris: Working Group's main page contains table, put up by Sandro, of documents to be done, along with the schedule.

16:13:43 [MichaelKifer]

MichaelKifer has joined #rif

16:13:44 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Chris: We closed issue 44, a grain of sand that had been irritating us, regarding uniterms.That was done on the first day.

16:14:46 [Zakim]

+ +1.631.833.aadd

16:14:53 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Chris: Did clean up on the specs of documents (get links, numbers).

16:15:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Chris: Another major resolution: Decided how to handle errors in BLD.

16:15:10 [MichaelKifer]

zakim, aadd is me

16:15:10 [Zakim]

+MichaelKifer; got it

16:15:56 [MichaelKifer]

zakim, mute me

16:15:57 [Zakim]

MichaelKifer should now be muted

16:16:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Chris: Went with third approach to handling errors: let implementors decided whether to return true or false for presence of errors.

16:16:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Chris: spec is requiring a guard predicate.

16:16:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Chris: Another resolution: We discovered BLD had reification. (Indeed, it was intentional.) We decided to take it out of BLD; framework, however, still permits you to write a dialect that has reification.

16:17:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Chris: Now, on to action review:

16:17:40 [josb]

q+

16:17:45 [LeoraMorgenstern]

There was Action ???? on Harold to ????

16:17:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Harold: will get it done 2 weeks from now.

16:18:07 [LeoraMorgenstern]

csma: but that will be after freezing date of document.

16:18:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]

csma: since freezing date is 11 of March.

16:19:14 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Due date for Harold has been changed for 18 of March.

16:19:28 [josb]

q?

16:19:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Also Action 441 on Harold to add IRIs to presentation syntax.

16:20:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Jos: In proposal sent to the mailing list, metadata is included as well as IRIs.

16:20:28 [LeoraMorgenstern]

But Action 442 is not obsolete, because it still hasn't been added to document.

16:21:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]

So 441 and 442 are continued. May become obsolete.

16:21:49 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Adrian not here. Jeff Pan (test cases for Rif) not here.

16:21:55 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Action 438 on Jos is pending discussion.

16:22:06 [MichaelKifer]

zakim, unmute me

16:22:06 [Zakim]

MichaelKifer should no longer be muted

16:22:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]

chris: Michael (action 437) add built-ins to semantics of bld and fld

16:22:16 [LeoraMorgenstern]

michael: this is ongoing

16:22:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]

michael: will have it done within a week, maybe.

16:22:33 [MichaelKifer]

zakim, mute me

16:22:33 [Zakim]

MichaelKifer should now be muted

16:22:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]

michael: will be going into next version

16:22:38 [Harold]

Harold has joined #rif

16:23:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Chris: did Axel finish list of built ins including typechecking and casting

16:23:04 [josb]

I'd say the lists are not finished.

16:23:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Chris: So action 436 is pending discussion.

16:23:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Sandro: action 435 is continued.

16:23:46 [MichaelKifer]

zakim, unmute me

16:23:46 [Zakim]

MichaelKifer should no longer be muted

16:23:46 [josb]

(E.g., casting functions are not included at all )

16:23:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]

csma: action 434 is ongoing, due on Friday.

16:24:47 [LeoraMorgenstern]

michael: action 433, to move section 2.0.9 to appendix: Possible to have one section about deriving bld from fld, and then one section for the semantics, and that will be clearer ---

16:25:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]

michael: once this is done, it can be determined whether it is better to move that section into an appendix.

16:25:07 [MichaelKifer]

zakim, mute me

16:25:07 [Zakim]

MichaelKifer should now be muted

16:25:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]

michael: that will also be done March 11.

16:25:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]

chris: action 431 can be deleted.

16:25:44 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Action 432 is continued.

16:25:53 [MichaelKifer]

zakim, unmute me

16:25:53 [Zakim]

MichaelKifer should no longer be muted

16:26:14 [LeoraMorgenstern]

michael: regarding actions 430 and 433: these are connected: sections will be combined.

16:26:14 [MichaelKifer]

zakim, mute me

16:26:14 [Zakim]

MichaelKifer should now be muted

16:26:23 [MichaelKifer]

zakim, unmute me

16:26:23 [Zakim]

MichaelKifer should no longer be muted

16:27:06 [MichaelKifer]

zakim, mute me

16:27:06 [Zakim]

MichaelKifer should now be muted

16:27:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]

michael: did not have a chance to look carefully at action 429, which depends on action 428, by Axel (and Harold). 428 has now been done, so will be doing 429 now.

16:27:59 [MichaelKifer]

zakim, unmute me

16:27:59 [Zakim]

MichaelKifer should no longer be muted

16:28:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]

michael: I'll do it all together this week.

16:28:28 [LeoraMorgenstern]

michael: same for actions 426 and 427.

16:28:43 [Zakim]

-Gary_Hallmark

16:28:49 [Harold]

Michael, Jos and all, re lists, there was only an open choice about two possible semantics: I'm fine with both. So, if no one wants the original 'pair' semantics, or has a problem with the 'nested-interpretation semantics', then let's go for the latter.

16:28:57 [LeoraMorgenstern]

correction: action 426 is obsolete and now closed.

16:29:10 [josb]

Okay, let's do that

16:29:37 [josb]

q+

16:30:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]

discussion on action 425, to make sure that BLD requires explicit quantification. What exactly was this action?

16:30:09 [josb]

zakim, ack me

16:30:09 [Zakim]

unmuting josb

16:30:10 [Zakim]

I see no one on the speaker queue

16:30:10 [ChrisW]

ack jos

16:30:49 [LeoraMorgenstern]

josb: in BLD document spec, there were two types of rules, one with and one without quantifiers, and it said explicitly that rules without quantifiers were allowed, so that has to be removed.

16:31:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]

michael: wasn't that just a bnf issue?

16:31:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]

josb: no, not just a bnf problem.

16:31:20 [LeoraMorgenstern]

josb: there should only be one type of rule, one with quantifiers.

16:31:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]

josb: one without quantifiers should be discarded, because we decided that all quantifiers must be explicit in BLD.

16:31:50 [josb]

zakim, mute me

16:31:50 [Zakim]

josb should now be muted

16:32:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]

michael: again, I'll be looking at all of these issues during this coming week.

16:33:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Harold: Action 423 depends on actions by Axel and Michael.

16:33:13 [LeoraMorgenstern]

(get Harold's remarks: can't hear him.)

16:33:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Harold: Do we require a guard for every built-in?

16:33:38 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Chris: no, not required, just recommended.

16:33:47 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Harold: can't do it earlier than 10 of March.

16:34:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]

csma: okay, that just all right, time wise.

16:34:13 [MichaelKifer]

zakim, mute me

16:34:13 [Zakim]

MichaelKifer should now be muted

16:34:28 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Adrian had action 413, but is not here.

16:34:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]

csma: Action 413 was done and discussed during f2f, so is now done.

16:34:57 [LeoraMorgenstern]

chris: action 406 is done.

16:35:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]

chris: action 405 on jos was done and discussed, so can now close it.

16:36:00 [LeoraMorgenstern]

harold: action 404, to update BLD syntax/semantics to reflect resolution on lists, was discussed a bit on the IRC.

16:36:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]

harold: There's a choice to make between two semantics for lists, and we have to decide on which one.

16:36:55 [Harold]

Michael, Jos and all, re lists, there was only an open choice about two possible semantics: I'm fine with both. So, if no one wants the original 'pair' semantics, or has a problem with the 'nested-interpretation function semantics', then let's go for the latter.

16:37:13 [LeoraMorgenstern]

chris: that needs to be on the agenda for next week.

16:37:49 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Actions 384 and 400 are pending discussion.

16:37:51 [josb]

Harold, <josb>Okay, let's do that

16:38:07 [Harold]

OK.

16:38:10 [DaveReynolds]

I agree, collation issue is certainly not critical.

16:38:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Sandro: action 382 can be dropped.

16:38:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]

So action 382 is closed.

16:38:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Action 378 is still pending discussion.

16:39:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]

sandro: Action 373 is done.

16:40:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]

chris: Actions 152, 253, 274, 305, 359, and 361 are all continued.

16:40:19 [ChrisW]

zakim, next item

16:40:19 [Zakim]

agendum 4. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW]

16:40:36 [josb]

no

16:40:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]

chris: Jos, anything new regarding OWL?

16:40:47 [ChrisW]

zakim, close item 4

16:40:47 [Zakim]

agendum 4, Liason, closed

16:40:48 [Zakim]

I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is

16:40:49 [Zakim]

5. DTB [from ChrisW]

16:40:49 [LeoraMorgenstern]

(see Jos's answer above.)

16:40:50 [ChrisW]

zakim, next item

16:40:50 [Zakim]

agendum 5. "DTB" taken up [from ChrisW]

16:41:26 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Chris: new document (on data types and built ins) is up on the wiki. Harold, what's the status?

16:41:35 [josb]

ack me

16:41:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]

Harold: <can't hear anything>

16:42:01 [Harold]

E.g.: 2.1.1.3 & proposal (Axel's proposal)

16:42:05 [LeoraMorgenstern]

josb: I saw a version, made comments, but haven't seen comments addressed.

harold: in terms of getting rid of uniterms: difference bewten atoms and expressions.

17:09:51 [ChrisW]

q?

17:09:57 [LeoraMorgenstern]

harold: once we have made this difference, cannot introduce uniterms anymore.

17:10:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]

harold: that was the resolution or decision, a year ago.

17:10:46 [josb]

ack me

17:10:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]

michael: we need a bnf from which it can all be derived.

17:11:23 [LeoraMorgenstern]

josb: Asks harold to respond to his grammar, and specify what's wrong with it.

17:11:35 [LeoraMorgenstern]

chris: harold doesn't think you need to split off uniterms from existing syntax.

17:12:36 [Harold]

We had a decision, approx. a year ago, to start with unified tags, and in later dialects refine them, rather than start with differentiated tags, and later try to re-unify them.

17:13:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]

chris: again, need to be able to distinguish in syntax itself, difference between functions and predicates, and the secon dissue that needs to be fixed in the syntax, is to make sure that there's no reification.

17:13:45 [LeoraMorgenstern]

chris: and we need metadata

17:13:56 [LeoraMorgenstern]

chris: and we need to be able to refer to IRIs

17:14:04 [csma]

and we need it by next week!

17:14:05 [LeoraMorgenstern]

chris: Jos's proposal addresses all of these.

17:14:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]

chris: but the existing syntax doesn't.

17:14:23 [ChrisW]

q?

17:14:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]

chris: we will discuss more next week, and hopefully come to a conclusion.

17:14:44 [Harold]

We applied this to the unified Uniterm tag rather than keeping our earlier Atom and Expr tags.

17:15:02 [ChrisW]

zakim, next item

17:15:02 [Zakim]

agendum 7. "BLD" taken up [from ChrisW]

17:15:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]

chris: Harold, can you send your comments as an email, since some didint' understand them?